Chapman v. Arlington Housing Authority

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 12, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10453
Summary Calendar
MARY SEALS CHAPMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARLINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY; HUD,
U. S. GOVERNMENT; DORIS DAVIS; DORIS
DAVIS REALTORS CORPORATION;
JIMMIE MARTIN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 4:05-CV-70)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mary Seals Chapman appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of her in
forma pauperis complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). We affirm for these reasons:
1. None of the acts of defendants as alleged by Chapman in her complaint involved
the violation of a constitutional right, and therefore, she has failed to state a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Doe v. Rains County Indep. Sch. Dist., 66 F.3d 1402, 1406
(5th Cir. 1995). A violation of state law is not cognizable under section 1983.
Giovanni v. Lynn, 48 F.3d 908, 912-13 (5th Cir. 1995). Chapman’s conclusory
allegation that her “civil rights” were violated is an insufficient basis for a section
1983 claim. Kinash v. Callahan, 129 F.3d 736, 738 (5th Cir. 1997).
2. In addition, Chapman does not allege in her complaint that (1) she is a member of
a racial minority, or (2) defendants intentionally discriminated against her,
necessary elements to support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 or 42 U.S.C. §
1982. Green v. State Bar of Texas, 27 F.3d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir.1994); Bellows v.
Amoco Oil, 118 F.3d 268, 274 (5th Cir. 1997).
3. Further, we cannot discern from the complaint the manner in which Chapman has
been discriminated against based on a disability, nor can we tell what disability
forms the basis of the alleged discrimination. Accordingly, Chapman’s appeal is
without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
AFFIRMED
2